-
European Journal of Pediatrics Dec 2023This study aims to provide a comparison of the current recommendations about the management of acute pharyngitis. A literature search was conducted from January 2009 to... (Review)
Review
This study aims to provide a comparison of the current recommendations about the management of acute pharyngitis. A literature search was conducted from January 2009 to 2023. Documents reporting recommendations on the management of acute pharyngitis were included, pertinent data were extracted, and a descriptive comparison of the different recommendations was performed. The quality of guidelines was assessed through the AGREE II instrument. Nineteen guidelines were included, and an overall moderate quality was found. Three groups can be distinguished: one group supports the antibiotic treatment of group A β-hemolytic Streptococcus (GABHS) to prevent acute rheumatic fever (ARF); the second considers acute pharyngitis a self-resolving disease, recommending antibiotics only in selected cases; the third group recognizes a different strategy according to the ARF risk in each patient. An antibiotic course of 10 days is recommended if the prevention of ARF is the primary goal; conversely, some guidelines suggest a course of 5-7 days, assuming the symptomatic cure is the goal of treatment. Penicillin V and amoxicillin are the first-line options. In the case of penicillin allergy, first-generation cephalosporins are a suitable choice. In the case of beta-lactam allergy, clindamycin or macrolides could be considered according to local resistance rates. Conclusion: Several divergencies in the management of acute pharyngitis were raised among guidelines (GLs) from different countries, both in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach, allowing the distinction of 3 different strategies. Since GABHS pharyngitis could affect the global burden of GABHS disease, it is advisable to define a shared strategy worldwide. It could be interesting to investigate the following issues further: cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies in different healthcare systems; local genomic epidemiology of GABHS infection and its complications; the impact of antibiotic treatment of GABHS pharyngitis on its complications and invasive GABHS infections; the role of GABHS vaccines as a prophylactic measure. The related results could aid the development of future recommendations. What is Known: • GABHS disease spectrum ranges from superficial to invasive infections and toxin-mediated diseases. • GABHS accounts for about 25% of sore throat in children and its management is a matter of debate. What is New: • Three strategies can be distinguished among current GLs: antibiotic therapy to prevent ARF, antibiotics only in complicated cases, and a tailored strategy according to the individual ARF risk. • The impact of antibiotic treatment of GABHS pharyngitis on its sequelae still is the main point of divergence; further studies are needed to achieve a global shared strategy.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Streptococcus pyogenes; Streptococcal Infections; Pharyngitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Hypersensitivity
PubMed: 37819417
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-023-05211-w -
Frontiers in Surgery 2023There is an ongoing debate on the indications for tonsil surgery in both children and adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. The aim is to provide practical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is an ongoing debate on the indications for tonsil surgery in both children and adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. The aim is to provide practical recommendations for diagnostics and treatment for recurrent acute tonsillitis including evidence-based decision making for tonsillectomy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from 2014 until April 2023 resulted in 68 articles. These were the basis for the review and a comprehensive series of consensus statements on the most important diagnostics and indications for both non-surgical and surgical therapy. A consensus paper was circulated among the authors and members of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group until a final agreement was reached for all recommendations.
RESULTS
The differentiation between sore throat and tonsillitis patient episodes is mostly not feasible and hence is not relevant for diagnostic decision making. Diagnostics of a tonsillitis/sore throat episode should always include a classification with a scoring system (Centor, McIssac, FeverPAIN score) to estimate the probability of a bacterial tonsillitis, mainly due to group A (GAS). In ambiguous cases, a point-of-care test GAS swab test is helpful. Consecutive counting of the tonsillitis/sore throat episodes is important. In addition, a specific quality of life score (Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory 14 or Tonsil and Adenoid Health Status Instrument) should be used for each episode. Conservative treatment includes a combination of paracetamol and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In case of high probability of bacterial tonsillitis, and only in such cases, especially in patients at risk, standard antibiotic treatment is initiated directly or by delayed prescription. Tonsillectomy is indicated and is highly effective if the patient has had ≥7 adequately treated episodes in the preceding year, ≥5 such episodes in each of the preceding 2 years, or ≥3 such episodes in each of the preceding 3 years. An essential part of surgery is standardized pain management because severe postoperative pain can be expected in most patients.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to follow a stringent treatment algorithm for an optimal and evidence-based treatment for patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. This will help decrease worldwide treatment variability, antibiotic overuse, and avoid ineffective tonsillectomy.
PubMed: 37881239
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1221932 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost and antibacterial resistance. One proposed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost and antibacterial resistance. One proposed strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions, but to advise delay in antibiotic use with the expectation that symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007, and updated in 2010, 2013 and 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects on duration and/or severity of clinical outcomes (pain, malaise, fever, cough and rhinorrhoea), antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance and patient satisfaction of advising a delayed prescription of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections.
SEARCH METHODS
From May 2017 until 20 August 2022, this was a living systematic review with monthly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 20 August 2022. Due to the abundance of evidence supporting the review's key findings, it ceased being a living systematic review on 21 August 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials involving participants of all ages with an RTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to immediate or no antibiotics. We defined a delayed antibiotic as advice to delay the filling of an antibiotic prescription by at least 48 hours. We considered all RTIs regardless of whether antibiotics were recommended or not.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
For this 2022 update, we added one new trial enrolling 448 children (436 analysed) with uncomplicated acute RTIs. Overall, this review includes 12 studies with a total of 3968 participants, of which data from 3750 are available for analysis. These 12 studies involved acute RTIs including acute otitis media (three studies), streptococcal pharyngitis (three studies), cough (two studies), sore throat (one study), common cold (one study) and a variety of RTIs (two studies). Six studies involved only children, two only adults and four included both adults and children. Six studies were conducted in primary care, four in paediatric clinics and two in emergency departments. Studies were well reported and appeared to provide moderate-certainty evidence. Randomisation was not adequately described in two trials. Four trials blinded the outcome assessor, and three included blinding of participants and doctors. We conducted meta-analyses for pain, malaise, fever, adverse effects, antibiotic use and patient satisfaction. Cough (four studies): we found no differences amongst delayed, immediate and no prescribed antibiotics for clinical outcomes in any of the four studies. Sore throat (six studies): for the outcome of fever with sore throat, four of the six studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and two found no difference. For the outcome of pain related to sore throat, two studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and four found no difference. Two studies compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotic for sore throat, and found no difference in clinical outcomes. Acute otitis media (four studies): two studies compared immediate with delayed antibiotics - one found no difference for fever, and the other favoured immediate antibiotics for pain and malaise severity on Day 3. Two studies compared delayed with no antibiotics: one found no difference for pain and fever severity on Day 3, and the other found no difference for the number of children with fever on Day 3. Common cold (two studies): neither study found differences for clinical outcomes between delayed and immediate antibiotic groups. One study found delayed antibiotics were probably favoured over no antibiotics for pain, fever and cough duration (moderate-certainty evidence).
ADVERSE EFFECTS
there were either no differences for adverse effects or results may have favoured delayed over immediate antibiotics with no significant differences in complication rates (low-certainty evidence). Antibiotic use: delayed antibiotics probably resulted in a reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (odds ratio (OR) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.07; 8 studies, 2257 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, a delayed antibiotic was probably more likely to result in reported antibiotic use than no antibiotics (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.75; 5 studies, 1529 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Patient satisfaction: patient satisfaction probably favoured delayed over no antibiotics (OR 1.45, 1.08 to 1.96; 5 studies, 1523 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably no difference in patient satisfaction between delayed and immediate antibiotics (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1927 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated antibiotic resistance. Reconsultation rates and use of alternative medicines were similar for delayed, immediate and no antibiotic strategies. In one of the four studies reporting use of alternative medicines, less paracetamol was used in the immediate group compared to the delayed group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For many clinical outcomes, there were no differences between prescribing strategies. Symptoms for acute otitis media and sore throat were modestly improved by immediate antibiotics compared with delayed antibiotics. There were no differences in complication rates. Delaying prescribing did not result in significantly different levels of patient satisfaction compared with immediate provision of antibiotics (86% versus 91%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, delay was favoured over no antibiotics (87% versus 82%). Delayed antibiotics achieved lower rates of antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (30% versus 93%). The strategy of no antibiotics further reduced antibiotic use compared to delaying prescription for antibiotics (13% versus 27%). Delayed antibiotics for people with acute respiratory infection reduced antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics, but was not shown to be different to no antibiotics in terms of symptom control and disease complications. Where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately for people with RTIs, no antibiotics with advice to return if symptoms do not resolve is likely to result in the least antibiotic use while maintaining similar patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to delayed antibiotics. Where clinicians are not confident in not prescribing antibiotics, delayed antibiotics may be an acceptable compromise in place of immediate prescribing to significantly reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for RTIs, while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction levels. Further research into antibiotic prescribing strategies for RTIs may best be focused on identifying patient groups at high risk of disease complications, enhancing doctors' communication with patients to maintain satisfaction, ways of increasing doctors' confidence to not prescribe antibiotics for RTIs, and policy measures to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for RTIs.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Common Cold; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cough; Respiratory Tract Infections; Pharyngitis; Otitis Media; Fever; Pain
PubMed: 37791590
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004417.pub6